Skip to comments.Woman Charged with Killing Husband with Enema
Posted on 02/04/2005 2:24:11 AM PST by UKCajun
A southeast Texas is charged with negligent homicide for giving her alcoholic husband an enema laced with sherry wine.
Police Detective Robert Turner in Lake Jackson, near Houston, says Tammy Jean Warner gave her 58 year old husband Michael the enema, knowing that the alcohol she put in it could be fatal.
"Sherry already has a greater alcohol content than normal wine," Turner said. "She knew that even if he passed out, the alcohol would continue to flow into him and he would absorb the alcohol, and that's what caused the overdose.
Turner told 1200 WOAI news an autopsy revealed Warner had a blood alcohol count of .47, near six times the legal limit.
"Anything over three, you're looking into going into a coma," Turner said.
Turner said while the practice 'may not be widespread,' alcoholics absorbing alcohol through an enema is not unheard of, but he said an alcohol laced enema is something new to him.
"Even the deceased's doctor had never heard of this before," Turner said.
This story got pulled the other day. I suspect there were too many lewd comments.
This is just so wrong in so many ways. But the sherry is intriguing http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/sheryvic.htm
On second thought, you should probably pull this.
Yes. How many times will this be posted? I'm tired of it.
|WOMAN ACCUSED OF KILLING HUSBAND WITH LETHAL ENEMA
|Posted by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
On News/Activism 02/03/2005 6:21:13 AM CST · 58 replies · 1,658+ views
The Houston Chronicle ^ | 3 February 2005 | RICHARD STEWART
LAKE JACKSON - Investigators say a Lake Jackson woman caused her husband's death by giving him a sherry enema, leading to alcohol poisoning. The enema caused his blood alcohol level to soar to 0.47 percent almost six times the legal intoxication limit, a toxicology report showed Tammy Jean Warner, 42, was indicted on a charge of negligent homicide. She is also charged with burning the will of her husband, Michael Warner, a month before his death on May 21. Michael Warner, a 58-year-old machine shop owner, had a long history of alcoholism, but couldn't ingest alcohol by mouth because...
I'm not suggesting it should get pulled but it's up to you. It is actually an interesting story from a medical perspective. I think the comments got out of hand the other day.
It should be pulled.
On second thought, you should probably pull this.
LOL. Now it will stay up all day.
.........with your signature on it as the poster. LOL.
Asking for comments........from this crowd........;-)
I suppose if nothing else, a 3 liter wine enema is the ultimate test of how well you can hold your liquor.
What is an enima? I've heard that word before, but I don't know what it means.
You're no fun at all!
I think it's a white rappper.
Oh brother!! It's like a saline spray, but not for your nose. LOL!
This is at least the third time an the past two days for this story.
Death from an enema... what an awful way to go.
And a bad way to die, also.
Shades of Frank Zappa!
A criminal. As in "Public Enema #1".
This sad story provides an example of alcoholic desperation. Alcoholism is a progressive, fatal, disease.
The end is never pretty.
Is this like the Illonios Enema Bandit?
The last thread has the most colorful comments!
Shades of Richard Gere and the Gerbils.
I guess this is the opposite of "up your nose with a rubber hose".....
This should NOT be pulled. College kids are stupid and try stupid things. People should be aware of this. I can just see the headline now. "Four Berkley Students Dead, 27 in Coma Due to Latest 'Drinking' Fad..."
What's up with the sudden rise of the censorious FReepers. Let's be big about this. There are multiple ping lists with multiple duplicate postings with multiple threads of the same story. There's bound to be duplicates, all working healthy posts and viewings. It's just the nature of the beast.
But everyday there is someone with a paper cut, telling the Mods to pull a thread as a duplicate. On many occasions, I'll post a thread just 30 seconds after another thread is posted (not knowing it because I'm too busy filling out the form for the next thread to post) and the second or forth response is some guy yelling at me for duplicating another post?! What gives? Not that you all are the regular perps, I'm just tired of seeing this constant criticism of duplicates. I call it drive-by purge requests.
You'll never see kattracks (for example) asking the mods to can a duplicate, mostly because he/she/it's too busy posting 15 more threads. Kattracks is prolific! I admire him/her/it. I want to be kattracks. (Shaking head out of a dream)...sorry where was I?
Oh yeah! FYI, this is the first time I viewed this thread. IMO, with the exception of the guys head in the crapper, it's an acceptable thread no matter how unnerving the subject. BTW, I didn't ask post #2 be deleted. Photo was unsightly but I've seen worse on threads showing muslims cutting throats, or terrorists blown away. Maybe I missed the other threads on this subject. Maybe I missed the bawdiness and inappropriate photos. But I promise I'll try harder to log on when they're present next time!!!!!!
So, I guess it's appropriate that I take the occasion to rant on a thread concerning something irritating and intrusive upon the sphincter.
I think I'm doing someone a favor, though I'm not sure who. I might be under some misapprehension regarding objections to duplicate posts. Personally, it doesn't annoy me even a little bit.
Anyway, this is the second time I've been landed on about that. In this case I thought I had seen that enema article at least three times, maybe four.
Hey, I have no intention of trying to stifle contributions. In the future, I think I'm going to be quiet about it and just surf on by.
Thanks for your informative comments.
You mean Public Enema #2, of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.